2002 is the exception that proved the rule. It took a historically unprecedented circumstance to buck that trend (9/11). The other times when that trend has been bucked since the Civil War was in 1998 (Clinton impeachment) and 1934 (Great Depression).

And again, why is the Democratic map so much harder than it was in 2006? It's because in 2006, they gained 6 of these seats (Montana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia). And in 2012, they lost Nebraska, but gained Maine and Indiana. Go back to 2000 and they gained 4 seats. The last time Democrats have gotten a net loss for this slate of seats was in 1994. The reason it's so hard is because Democrats have done so well. They've won almost all of the Senate seats for this class! And there's not much reason yet to believe Republicans can take any of them back when Democrats were defending most of these seats back in 2012 and Republicans failed.

Corker is a reliable vote for McConnell. If he's going to vote for everything McConnell puts on the table, then we actually can't do any worse. Someone who causes trouble like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz and is stupid enough to not support something because it's not exactly what they want would actually be better than Corker.

Most of that data is from the Obama administration. The party that has the White House tends to lose seats in the states. So yah, Tennessee turned against Democrats under Obama. They also turned against Democrats under Clinton. After two terms of a Democratic governor, they elected a Republican governor in 1994 and 1998. Democrats had a majority of Tennessee seats in the House in 1994 and Republicans won a majority from 1996-2000. Democrats lost both Senate seats in 1994.

Then, under Bush, a Democratic governor was elected twice. Democrats won a majority of Tennessee seats in the House from 2004-2008. And there was no beating Lamar Alexander in 2002, but they can't very close to winning in 2006.

We have to look back to the last time we had these conditions with a Republican president. In 2006, Democrats won the governor's race, a majority of races for the House, and came very close to winning the Senate race. I'd say the difference in the Senate race was that Corker was a mayor and Harold Ford was a congressman. Democrats could have a much stronger candidate this time. Now that we are back in the position we were in in 2006, there's no reason to believe Democrats can't take that Senate seat and the governor's seat, and a majority of Tennessee seats in the House again.

Remember that the reason why this is such a hard map for Democrats is because they won these seats in 2012, 2006, and 2000. If they won those seats in 2000 and 2012, often with Al Gore and Barack Obama losing those states, they can definitely do it in 2018, with a president even less popular than George Bush was in 2006.

I don't think John McCain makes it to 2018, so I think the worst case scenario is Democrats pick up Nevada and two seats in Arizona, but lose two or three seats. So, basically a stalemate. Best case is holding on to every state and winning Nevada, 2 seats in Arizona, Texas, and Tennessee. Most likely case is holding on to every seat and picking up 3 seats in Nevada and Arizona. Heller and Flake are seriously troubled.

I never said she handed over all of them. I said she handed over the emails that had information pertaining to government work. Now, do you have an analysis of these extra emails that shows they were related to government work?

He didn't release this judgment in an official report that was fact checked and edited. He was speaking off the cuff. And it's a completely different statement from "she would have been better off using Gmail".

With everything that has been found regarding hacking of various governmental and non-governmental servers, it's a pretty big leap to suggest that the FBI couldn't detect it in Hillary's server.

So, he didn't say that she would be better off using Gmail. And he wouldn't because he wouldn't condone giving up control of government documents to Google. He just gave his off the cuff opinion as someone with no experience in IT as to which one would be harder for hackers to get into, despite the fact that the whole thing is moot because Clinton's server, unlike the State Department, was never hacked.

It wasn't encrypted from January to March 2009 because she wasn't using it. If you look at the database of emails, she doesn't really start using it until March 18. Your problem is you're using very talking points that haven't been updated with the data that has come out.

And Loretta Lynch didn't make any comments on what kind of email server Clinton should have used.

No, a private server is much more secure than Gmail. When you use Gmail, you're relinquishing control of your emails to Google. And unlike government servers recently, Clinton's server was never breached.

NBC is still a producer on the show. They didn't think NBC was a good fit, so they sold it to Netflix, where it could thrive. Netflix is still paying NBC for it every year and NBC will probably sell syndication rights. Smart move for NBC

Imperioli definitely has done more since the Sopranos than Dreyfus did in between Seinfeld and Christine. I think the success of Veep has changed how people think about her career, which shows how much of a difference just one role can make.

I'll repeat what the other judge said because the extent of the original judge's abuse of the justice system is apparently not getting through

one judge on the Los Angeles County Superior Court indicated that if Mr. Polanski, a fugitive, returned to the United States for a hearing, the judge might be compelled to free him because of the conduct of Laurence A. Rittenband, the judge who handled the case in the 1970s and who died in 1993. The judge expressing concern, Larry P. Fidler, also said he feared a public backlash if he ruled in Mr. Polanski’s favor.

“Since the law was on his side because of Rittenband’s conduct, I was convinced I was toast if he ever came back, and my career would be over,” Judge Fidler wrote to the court’s public information officer in a June 9, 2008, email obtained separately by The New York Times and by Mr. Polanski’s lawyers.

It's not just that the judge was giving him more time than agreed to, it's the reason he was doing it. He admitted to all of the lawyers involved that he was making a judgment informed by a fear of how it would be perceived in the public, not by the law. And then he tried to script the trial. When even the victim's attorney is saying "no, this is wrong", Polanski's lawyer was right to tell him to flee. That advice was validated by this email from another Los Angeles judge 30 years later. Before Polanski puts his life in the hands of this system that did him wrong in the past, he needs assurance that this miscarriage of justice will be rectified. The United States hasn't made any attempt to do that.

Maybe you should dig a little deeper and find a more recent source because other articles refer to the extra emails as emails that the State Department received in bulk from the FBI and had to process. The State Department referred to them at "personal and work-related" i.e. "we just received these and we don't know what they are". Feel free to pursue that lead and see if you can find any information about what happened with those. You might not have a lot of luck since I hear the State Department has been downsized.

Comey said there is no evidence these emails were deleted in an attempt to conceal information.

one judge on the Los Angeles County Superior Court indicated that if Mr. Polanski, a fugitive, returned to the United States for a hearing, the judge might be compelled to free him because of the conduct of Laurence A. Rittenband, the judge who handled the case in the 1970s and who died in 1993. The judge expressing concern, Larry P. Fidler, also said he feared a public backlash if he ruled in Mr. Polanski’s favor.

“Since the law was on his side because of Rittenband’s conduct, I was convinced I was toast if he ever came back, and my career would be over,” Judge Fidler wrote to the court’s public information officer in a June 9, 2008, email obtained separately by The New York Times and by Mr. Polanski’s lawyers.

Now, where does Roman Polanski agree to this treatment from an officer of the law?